Vol. 443 No. 7
8 Mr. Allen asked the Minister for Social Welfare if he will make a statement on the recent claim by FLAC that his Department imposed a confidentiality clause on the settlement made on a claim on behalf of 1,800 people by FLAC for arrears of equality treatment payments.
11 Proinsias De Rossa asked the Minister for Social Welfare in regard to his comments quoted in the Sunday Business Post of 22 May 1994, and the Irish Independent of 23 May 1994, that the settlement of claims for arrears of transitional social welfare payments would cost £354 million, the way in which this figure was arrived at; the number of claimants on which it is based; the average assumed payment; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
27 Proinsias De Rossa asked the Minister for Social Welfare if his attention has been drawn to a letter written by FLAC in which the solicitor in question indicates that the confidentiality clause included in the settlement of claims of arrears of transitional payment was a condition imposed by the Department of Social Welfare; his views on whether this statement is correct; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 8, 11 and 27 together.
Deputies will be well aware from the several debates in this House in recent months of the ongoing legal proceedings arising from the delay in 1984 in implementing the equal treatment directive. Three cases in which proceedings have been initiated are to be heard in the High Court next week. As the matter is sub judice, I am constrained from discussing issues which will have to be determined by the courts. Within these constraints, I have provided all possible information in relation to this matter as evidenced by my recent attendance at a meeting of the Joint Oireachtas Committee on Women's Rights.
The estimate of £354 million is based on the cost of paying all those affected by the delay in implementing Directive 79/7 on the basis sought in the legal proceedings. This would involve making double payments in many situations. For example, where both of a couple were in receipt of a social welfare payment in the period of delay, it would mean paying each of the couple an increase for their spouse as an adult dependant in addition to their personal rate of payment and paying each of the couple the full rate of increases for children.
Effectively, this would mean paying the same families twice — two personal rates, two adult dependants and double payments for the children. It would also mean paying people "compensation" payments in the form of transitional payments for a "loss" which they did not suffer. The payments made to those involved were actually increased on the implementation of equal treatment in 1986.
My knowledge of the letter written by FLAC is confined to Deputy Rabbitte's statement during the debate on the Private Members' Motion on this issue on 18 May last. I have not seen the taxt of the letter nor am I aware of the context in which it was written. As to the confidentiality clause itself, the settlement was negotiated and agreed between the legal representatives of both sides, with the consent of both parties to the proceedings. I have already made clear that the confidentiality clause has been a standard feature of the various settlements agreed since 1991, and in each instance, was included in the settlement agreement with the consent of both parties. Being an agreement made with the consent of both parties, it would not have been possible for either party to impose any condition on the other side. It would be entirely inappropriate for me to comment further on any negotiations which were involved in reaching these agreements.
I will keep my questions short if the Minister agrees to keep his replies short. I wish to raise a number of questions which relate to issues which have been dealt with and which are not affected by the sub judice rule. During the debate on equality payments to women on 17 May the Minister denied my allegations that his Department——
I must dissuade the Deputy from——
I am choosing my words very carefully to ensure that the Minister gives specific answers to specific questions. I was suspended from this House when I tried to get at the truth on this issue.
The Deputy was suspended for conflicting with the Chair.
I will get at the truth either today or on Thursday during the debate on the Estimate for the Department of Social Welfare.
The Chair is concerned about applying the Standing Orders and I must dissuade the Deputy from quoting at Question Time. It is not in order.
I am not quoting, I am reading from my notes.
It seemed to the Chair that the Deputy was quoting.
The Minister denied my allegations that he had imposed terms of confidentiality on the settlement reached with FLAC on the steps of the High Court in regard to the 1,800 cases. He also stated that he did not impose terms of confidentiality on the cases settled with 800 women in Cork city. FLAC has denied asking for the imposition of terms of confidentiality. Having regard to the statement by FLAC that it is prepared to allow the terms of the settlement to be made public, will the Minister tell the House the terms of settlement in both cases? We are speaking about taxpayers' money and the Minister should put on the record of the House the full terms of settlement.
I think the Deputy is well aware that the terms of settlement in these cases were agreed between the parties, and were not imposed. Once the terms are agreed I am bound by them and I have no intention of breaking them.
The Minister has an obligation to account to this House for any public moneys spent.
All the moneys will be accounted for. The Deputy need not worry about that point.
I must call Deputy De Rossa who has tabled a related question on this subject.
Has the Minister read the Official Report of the Democratic Left Private Members' Motion in which the FLAC letter was read in full by Deputy Rabbitte? Will he agree that FLAC made it clear it did not seek a confidentiality clause, rather that it was sought by the departmental representatives and agreed to by FLAC at the time because the Department had sought it? Given that he has political responsibility for his Department, the Minister is, therefore, ultimately responsible for the confidentiality clause.
Will the Minister outline in more detail the estimate of the cost of the equality payments which are due? He said that £354 million would be payable and that a number of payments would be double payments. Will he outline the number of claimants accounted for by this sum of £354 million, the number which are double payments and the number which are transitional payments? That information can have no effect whatever on the claims before the courts which he says are sub judice.
I do not have that information with me.
You should have.
I have made it clear that this matter is before the courts——
On a point of order, the Minister should have that information with him as a specific question was put down on this matter.
The courts are meeting next week and the State's case will be defended——
The Minister should have this information.
——by the State.
That is rubbish.
The Minister is a disgrace.
Let us moderate our language.
The Minister is a total disgrace.
Please, Deputy.
He is treating this House with contempt.
Let us hear the Minister without interruption.
There was a certain respect for the sub judice rule——
There is no sub judice rule which prevents the Minister giving this House information on the number of people he believes are entitled to the moneys claimed. The Minister is a disgrace.
——and the State's case in defending these cases——
The Minister is digging a bigger hole for himself every day.
I have answered the Deputy's question——
The Minister is denying these women their right to a claim and to information. He is a total disgrace.
The amount of money relates to the claims which have been made——
Will the Minister tell the House the number of people he believes are entitled to the money being claimed?
Deputy De Rossa, we must proceed by way of question and answer.
How many women are entitled to these claims?
Please, Deputy De Rossa.
The Minister gave a figure of £354 million and I would like to know the number of women who are entitled to these claims.
Put down a question.
The Minister should know the answer.
That is not the question the Deputy asked.
The Minister should tell the House the number of women who are entitled to these claims.
The Minister is covering up; he is digging a bigger hole for himself.
The Deputy has been given the information in separate replies. That is not the question he asked.
The Minister is keeping information from women. He is a disgrace.
Please, Deputy De Rossa.
He is contemptible.
I am not going to give the Deputy approximate numbers because the minute I do so either he or——
You have given us a figure of £354 million——
That answers the question.
How many claims is that figure based on? The Minister is telling a lie by stating that he does not have the figure with him.
I beg your pardon.
That is a direct lie to this House.
I do not have the figure with me.
It has to be a lie. How can he tell the House that the cost will be £354 million and then say he does not know the number of women who are entitled to the payments being claimed?
It is quite disorderly to act in this fashion.
If he does not know the figure, he should resign. He is either incompetent or dishonest.
He is a disgrace.
The time for dealing with priority questions is clearly well nigh exhausted but I will call Question No. 9 if it is responded to forthwith.
The Minister is treating the House with contempt.
Order.
I have a further supplementary.
If the Deputy wishes——
I was suspended from this House for trying to get at the truth. I have a supplementary question on this issue which I would like to ask. The Minister is covering up, is being totally dishonest in his replies and is misleading——
If Deputy Allen protests so much, I will have no option but to proceed to ordinary questions.
We will get the truth on Thursday.
The Chair seeks to ensure equity and fair play for Deputies in this matter, nothing more.
We are not getting fair play. The House is being treated with contempt by the Minister.
Can I have a reply, Minister, to Question No. 9 in the name of Deputy Helen Keogh?
I want to reject Deputy De Rossa's suggestions——
The Minister is treating the House with contempt.
If he puts down a question he will get an answer.
The Minister is incompetent if he does not know the answer, and he should resign.
The figure covers——
We are not getting any answers.
If the Deputy listens I will answer——
Give us the information we are seeking.
What kind of toe rag is the Deputy? Will he listen to my answer?
Is that the way the Minister——
The Chair has called Question No. 9.
On a point of order, a Cheann Comhairle, the Minister made an outrageous remark to Deputy De Rossa. I ask him to apologise.
Please, Deputy Allen.
No Member of the Opposition should be treated like that. The Minister is incompetent, dishonest and arrogant.
I am calling Question No. 9.
I withdraw the remark.
Would the Minister tell us how many women are entitled to this?
I would include all the women who would be affected.
This personal abuse ought not to continue.
Is the Minister telling us that the £354 million is a total myth not based on any statistic?
The Deputy ought to read the answer.
I have called Question No. 9 several times.
How many women are affected? Are there 60,000 70,000 or 80,000? How many?
Deputy De Rossa should desist and resume his seat. Will the Deputy please allow Question Time to proceed?
How many women are affected?
I hesitate to disenfranchise the Deputy awaiting an answer to a question but I feel I have no option but to proceed to ordinary questions.
You disenfranchised me, a Cheann Comhairle, for three days while I awaited an answer to a question.
I am calling Question No. 12 in the name of Deputy O'Malley.
The sooner the better there is a reshuffle across there. Then we might get a Minister who knows what he is about and who might treat the women of this country with some respect.
Is there not an agreement that we may proceed with questions nominated for priority in ordinary time if we do not reach the remainder of questions nominated for priority within the time stipulated?
That is in relation to the final question only.
Deputy. I understand that Question No. 12 has been called.
My Question No. 10 was the final one nominated for priority since Question No. 11 has already been answered with No. 8.
